Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout79 - 107 A (5)/� f J � r M is y � �f, r � J � k �, i 'y �! y .ki `31w,,a � � � i r � � � a4 t � � 1 k+ Y � � � �jJ J �.: iy� � a'} : ti 1hp -J Y�.,•n i c S �r'k Ca' � ! � h„, 1 5qr t �'�^ .�. 4 a i 5 'tti. c �}! # �"� �` , � c, ;* � +e ` v i + � '� '�. J � 1i � n � j � . r � � L � � 1, � `k f ¢ wl F l k �'� :1 ..4w.,. .�e e., ,JO: J t, ,fid,._ + 3 b, 1. a`di t,ya., i,�.i � ,� m,' .,.u,c 5. ,� `ti`�.,��,y, ��,�,�. ,� 1.. � •",'I �:: ' ,��� ♦ CHAPTER XV ORGANIZATIONS AND PBRSONS CONSULTED BUTTE COUNTY Earl Nelson, Directory Environmental Review Department Steve. StreetQr, Planner, Environmental Review Department Robert Gaiser, Planner, Department of Planning Roy Pritchard, Refuse Disposal Supervisor, Department of Public Worley Chief Hector Reid, Butte County Fire Department Lt, Terry Korton, Butte County Sheriff's Department, Chico Substation Clay Castleberry, Director,•, Department of Public Works Rick Booth, Butte County Air Pollution Contrrol Office Jon Anderson, Consulting Civil Engineer CITY OF C,HXCO John Hoole, Director, 'Depi rrtment of Planning Allan Savitz, Director, Department of Public Works David Jan, Manager, Chico Sewage Treatment Plant Ben Matiews, Chico Unified School District Keith Johnson, Director, Chico State University, Anthropology Museum Greg Hintont Anthropologist, Chico State University Gene rzant, District Manager, California Water Services - CoMpany Gaylan Hoss, District engineer, Electrical Department, chicoy; Pacific Gas &: Electric Company Robert Johnson, Pacific Telephone Company Don Curtis, Assistant Administrator;, Enloe Memorial Hospital i Chico Larry Long, Administrator, Chico Memorial. hospital 9 REFERENCES Airport Environs Plan w City of Chico and County of Butte, August x.978 prepared by R. Dixon ... Speas Associates, Ing. Preliminary Research Document: Environmental impact Report on the Proposed Chico Mun�oip�tl Airport Area Rezone, 1976, prepared by Geography Class on. environmental impact analysis at CSU, Chico under the dir.ecL-Iol Of Dr. William V. Collins Draft Environmental. Zmpawt Report for Northeast !Chico Specific Plan, May 1979 EIR for Northwest Chico R4zone, December 1978, EIR for Stonybrook Estates Tentative Subdivision, December 1978. EIA for Imhoff-Blindbury Mobilehome Park, May 1979 EIR for North Esplanade Genera. Plan Amendment and Rezone, May 1gM . E1R for Dan Hays, at. a1; Rezone, December 1976 with ara.endments, Chico Area Transportation Study, D, Jackson Faustman, The Spink Corporation 1976. Chico News & Review-- 8/16/79 issue. Rock Creek Flood Diversion: A Planning Feasibility Study of Physical Project Features - Jon Anderson, May 1979, Design Memo No. 5 (1961) for Sacramento River & Major and Minor Tributariest Chico & Mud Creeks 5 Sandy Gulch, General. Design Army Corps. EIR -t-test Highway 82 Genera, Plan Amendment & Re2ohe. EIR - Lone Tree Subdivision. General Plan Map of Chico Area, Butte County General Ilan. General Plan Map, City of Chico. Chico Airport Vicinity file. Soil Survey of Chico Area (1929). Design Memo No. 1 (1957) for Sacramento, River &Major &Minor Tributaries - Arty Corps 97 a APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OP USES ALLOWED UNDER VARIOUS ZONING CLAASSIFICATIONS. I. SR -1 SUBURBAN RBSIDB14TT,AX, A. USES PERMITTED 1. One single-family dwelling unit per pn rcel., (:1: -acre minimum) not including teats, trailers or mobile homes. 2. Accessary buildings pertinent to thepermitted uses. 3. Agricultural uses except a minimum lot area of 1: acre to be developed for residential use and the following additional requirements for each animal kept on the premises a. Each horse, cattle, and swine, over 1 year of age, 8,125 square feet. b. Each sheep or goat, 2,000 square feet. B. USES REQUIRING USE PERMIT 1. Golf C.)urse and country cltbs 2. Public and quasi -public uses; i.e., churches, fire housese hospital, park, playgrounds, schools and public buildings; 3: Sales tract offices. 7I. SR -3 SUBURBAN .RESIDENTIAL A. USES PERMITTED 1. One single-family dwelling per parcel, not including tents, trailers, or mobile homes 2. Accessory buildings pertinent to the permitted uses. 3. Agricultural uses except a minimum lot area of 3 ac�:es to be devoted to residential use and the following additional requirements for each animal kept on the premises: a. For each horse, or headof cattle, or swirle over 1 year of age, 8,125 square Feet. b. For each sheep or goat, 2,000 square feel, 4. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall not be less than 3 acres; the provisions of Section 24-33 notwithstanding. 5. The minimum lot width shall not be less 130 feet; -the provisions of Section 24_33 notwithstanding. B. USES REQUIRING USE PERMIT 1. Golf courses and country clubs. 2. Public and quasi -public uses including churches, Firehouses, hospital, parks, playgrounds, schools, and public utility buildings, 3. Sales tract office. xr1. SR -10 gUBL RBAN-ACRICULTU'RAL--RESIDENTIAL A. USES PERMITTED 1. One single-family dwell per parcel, not including tents, trailei or mobile homes. 24, Accessory buildings pertinent 'to the permitted uses. 3. Agricultural uses,, except the following additional area requirements for each head of livestock ,kept on the premises: a. For each horse, head of cattle, or swine over 1 year of age', 8,1.25 square feet. b. For each sheep or 'goat, 2,000 square feet. B. USES REQUIRING USE,PERMIT 1. Golf courses and country clubs. 2. Public and quasi -public uses including churches, firehouse8, hospital, parks, playgrounds, school., and publicutilitybuildings, 3. sales tract office. IN. A -SR AGRICULTURAL-SUBCJR13AN-RL,'S DEN'S AL 4. USES PERMITTED 1. One single-family dwelling per parcel.,. not .including bents or mobile homes, 2, Accessory buildings pertinent to -the permitted uses. 31., Agricultural uses, except livestock subject to the following requirements: a, For each horse or head of rattle over 1 year of age, one-half acre, 21.,780 square ;Ceei:. b. For each head of swine over 10 weeks of age, one-half acre, 21;780 square feet. c. For each head of sheep or goats - one-quarter acre, 10,800 square feet. B. LOT AREA Minimum required area of lot per dwelling unit shall be not less than 8,125 square feet, V. P -Q PUBLIC, QUASI -PUBLIC A. USES PERMITTED J, Public schools 2. Public parks 8. Public playgrounds 4. Pub1 idly -•owners buildings and lane 5. Public recreational areas 6. Public hospitals B MINIMUM LOT AREA None C. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH None D. MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIRED Not Less than 20 acres VI. A-90 AGRICULTURAL Ai USES PERMITTED 1 One single -family dwelling per parcel, including mobile homes. 2. General agriculture farming, horticulture, conmiercia t livestock, poultry production, grow- ing and harvesting forestry products, warehousing, and storage. 3. Accessory buildings and uses pertinent to the permitted uses, including agricultural process- ing plants 4. Housing facilities (including trailers) to accommodate only employees and their families employed by the owner or operator of the premises and provided further that such housing facility shall be considered accessory to the main build- ing and shall conform to the provisions pertaining to required yard and open space for dwellings. 5. Mining, quarrying,, commercial, dxcavationp and wood processing plants, 6o Hunting and fishing camps,, including those which accommodate recreational vehicles and travel trailers, 'providing that said recreational vehicles and and travel trailers shall not be used for year- round occupancy. B. MINIMUM LOT ,AREA REQUIRED Not less than 40 acres. VII. A-160 AGRICULTURAL A. USES PERMITTED 1. One single --family dwelling per parcel. 2. (yf.'iiera! agriculture, farming, ;Iorti culture, commercial livestock, poultry production, growing and harvesting forest products, warehousing, and storage. 3. Accessory buildings and uses pertinent to the permitted uses, including agricultural prooessing plants 4. Housing facilities (including trailers) to accom- modate only employees and their families employed by the owner or operator of the premisel and pro- vided further that such housing facility shall be considered accessory to the main building and shall conform to the provisions pertaining to required yard and open space for dwellings 5 Mining, quarrying, commercial excavation, and wood processi:r+g plants. 6. Hunting and fishing camps, including those which accommodate recreational vehicles and travel trailers providing that said recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be used for year-round occupancy, Bi MTNIMU LO'T AREA REQUIRPD Not less than 160 acres. VIII, CT -Z GENERAL COMMERCIAL, A. usESPERMITTED 1. Dwellings and dwelling groups, subject to the building site area, lot width and yard requirements specified for residential districts. 2. All uses permitted in "C-1" (Li.aht commercial) Districts. 3, General commercial uses including art shops; aviaries, bar and cocktail lounges, .billiard parlors and pool hails, howling alleys, }wilding' material. (retail), cleaning and pressing estab- lishments, dance halls; interior decorating shops, employment agencies, governmental legislative a i c buildifvjt , gymnasiti mt-3, public, commercial, or physical t:ultural I tici.4os, hospitals, hotels and motels, I iboratorit :�,, f"ind X-ray facilities, massage parloni , tid reducii q ,,° lons, equipment rentals, pet shop.,,, used ca3 'l vi- s, repair garages, auto car washinij plumbiliq .Ai0ps, cabinet shops, sign manufacttar•ing shop: , di. ive-in restaurants, and other tetrtt.l est abl lshments when interpreted as similar. )3. USES REQUIRLNG USE PERMIT 1. Weldino shops. 2. Manufac tlari.ng of clog hi.ng, handicraft products, printing, lithographing, and other light manu- facturing or industrial uses of similar character.. 3. Public or quasi -public uses including churches. TX. L -I LIMITED INDUSTRIAL A. USES PERMITTED 1 Storage and distribution of goads and materials, inclt5ding wholesaling, warehouses, moving services, Vehicle storage, mini -storage, delivery services and similar uses, but not including storage of inflammables, explosives, or materials which create dust, odors, or fumes. 2., Oft; -site construction and maintenance services, including building, electrical,, p-lumbing, heating roofing, painting, landscaping; excavation and similar contractors and janitorial, fumigating, septic, tank pumping, and similar services 3. Assembly and light manufacturing uses which are not objectionable, obnoxious or offensive by reason of emission of noise, smoke, dust,, odors, fumes; cinders, heat, bright lights, -vibration, radiation, refuse matter or water -carried waste and which do not involve the handling of inflammable, explosive or dangerous materials. Permitted uses include woodworking and cabinet shops; sheet metal. work; printing, engraving and sign manufacture, and manufacture of clothingt handicraftst tools; instruments, fixtures, parts and equipment from previously prepared materials but do not include casting, milling, smelting, refining, weaving, rr brwviftg, bottling, rebuilditqt reoyolinqo oanningt tinning, rendering or any chemical processing, Utility yards and installatlons4 Residonoo O:e caretaker or proprietor, APPENDIX B SOIL CAPABILITY UNITS CLASSIFICATION DEFINITIONS x-1 r,ew limitations ghat, restrict use. Moderate to high water holding capacity, slow runoff. Permeability - moderately slow to moderately rapid. II W--2 Imperfectly drained. Presence of clay or hardpan layer. Low subsurface permeability. III W-5 Slow to 'very slow permeability, Low to moderate wator holding capacity. Very plastic when wet, hard when. dry. High shrink -swell: potential. Runoff slow. IV S-8 Well drained. Very slowly permeable. Subsoil underlain by hardpan. VI S-8 Permeability moderate. Runoff slow to rapid. 'Water holding capacity low. VII S-8 Very shallow to moderately deep-. Hardpan 1 or bedrock underlines surface, Slowly permeable. Low water holding capacity' Runoff slow. VI,LT S-8 Shallow. Well drai.ne0l. Runoff is medium to very rapid`. Erosion potential is severe in some places. 7, APPENDIX Z ,T. Inter-peparimentml Memorandum Yn: Planning Commission PROM! Bob Gaiser sunrr: Planning For Chico Airport Area DATE: April 12, 1979 Pursuant to an implementation measure in the Noise Element adopted in March 1977, the County hired R. Dixon Spear to prepare a "Chico Munic- ipal Airport Environs Plan". The final draft recently presented to the Commission focuses on the noise and safety impacts of future aircraft operations and the compatibility of various land uses and densities. The purpose of this memorandum is to supplement the data and recommendations of that document with.a.thorough analysis of adopted County policies and criteria which are relevant to a comprehensive land use plan for the area around Chico Municipal Airport. Thu major policy issues are summarized and followed by a listing of relevant General Plan policies with comments. Finally, land use proposals are considered along with designation criteria for land use categories and the zoning factors within each designation. NJajor Issues: It must first be noted that Chico Municipal Airport serves a. large an growing region and is the only airport in Butte County or adjacent counties with scheduled air Carrier service. Because of its regional role and the substantial investment of public funds, the airport merits the County,`s protection against surrounding development which might unnecessarily limit aircraft activities or otherwise restrict operations of this valuable public facility. Preventing incompatible development around the airport also protects the health, safety and environmental quality of future residents by minimizing disturbing noises from aircraft activities. Nonetheless, there are sound reasons not only for the recent development pressures in the area but also for encouragement of development by the County. The airport area is level, the soil is poorly suited. for plant crops, and natural hazards are minimal. Unfortunately, the south end of the main runway is located only a male north of the, present edge of the Chico urban area, Were it not for the need to protect the airport, the arca t.rould undoubtedly experience 'considerable development ill the future and thus tale some pressure off Trine agricultural land west of the City. The major issue in planning the future development of the airport area is, therefore, the conflict between the need to protect the airport operations and the 'need to facilitate development on non-prime'soils, The Chico General Plan states that the land designated for urban; resident-i.a; development urould accorimodate the anticipated housing increase during the next 20 year's and that "ample land is available to accommodate even the highest 1995 growth projections without necessitating the development of either prime agricultural soils or land not suited to dcvelopmont". Fiore- ever, it must be recognized that the sufFiciencN, of Chico General Plan clesignations is largely dependent on the City's ability to provide se,�,-ers to areas of non -prima soils and poor suitability for septic tan};s, i.ncludinj the Northeast Chico area affected by the airport noise and safety factors described in the Speas report. This consideration has been addressed by the recent adoption b)r LAFCo of a Spheres of Influence plan for "the City % Planning for Chico Airport Area 'ago -3. RELEVA'4T POLICIES FROM PROPOSED LAND USE ELE'ME'NT B.1 General ',,e�l fa ' a. Provide for the health, safety an �Je .I -being of the County's present and future residents. (Noise is health factor; see State Health Department guidelines for compatihle land uses by noise levels, Consider safety factor in approach areas). B.2 PlanningArea; b. Cooperate with incorporated cities and ne hh"boring counties in the development of Planning: proposals for areas of mutual concern: (Cooperate with City of Chico in planning around Chico Municipal Airport.) B.3 Time Frame; a Plan for development within the County or the ciasuing 20 yeays, giving emphasis to the more immediate years, while at the same time considering the long range factors and trends. B.4 Population Growth: a. Eased upon continuous analysis. oY p.opulation trends, provide plans which allow reasonable "freedom of choice" of sites and facilities for the population growth of the County, both in the County as a whole, and in its various sections. b. Designate adequate land for free-market competition among land suppliers to avoid a.rtifically constricting land availability: (Consider adequacy of ciesign;ations in entire Chico urban area.) 8.6 Intergovernmental Coordinatio,t: a. Attempt to coordin- ate all government plans an programs so that they are mutually supportive in all. areas. (Coordinate County General Plan and zoning with City of Chico's airport development, sewer plans, Spheres of Influence and General flan . )' B.7 Orderly neve lo ment a. Encourage annexation to .existing cities an existing districts b. Promote the'full utilization of sites served by existing public facilities. c.. Encourage development in and around existing communities with public facilities-. (Existing water and sever systems in urban area below sycamore Creek.) Planning for Chip o Airport Aze,;,t . Fuge -4- Agricoltural and Cru Land: e. Encourage urban expansiontaw a'rd�tl7c aast productive soils. (host of airport area has unproductive soils . ) C.2 Grazing Land; a; Maintain extensive areas for primary use xvestoc'k grazing land. - b. Allots livestock grazing on all suitable sites not needed for development or crop production. c. Provent scattered development in grazing areas, d, Discourage irrigation of grazing land with poor drainage or which has a high risk of mosquito production. e. Retain in an Grazing; -open Land. Category areas on the Land Use Map where location and natural conditions make lands well suited for grazing land, while considering for non -grazing use areas where urban encroachment has made inroads into grazing areas and where past official: actions have planned areas for development. (Most of undeveloped land in, airport area has been .bed for non -irrigated livestock grazing.) C.4 Water F,esour ces : a. Maintain quantity. and duality of water resources adequate for all uses in the County. d Require adequate water supply ,for all. new development. (Consider q om'aater p`1ies and location of Water Company's domestic system.) C.S Air Resources: a.Evaluate carefully the air pollution note t 7. --o-f—all developmentplans and proposals D.1 Housing Sunply and Variet a. Establish appropriate Yon -Ing to prnv e sites nc,lud ng various choices) to meet housing needs for the ensuing 20 years. b. Provide: a diversity of housing sites varying in si it e', density and location. _. D. 2 Densities* a. Correlate resi(,�,ntial densities to soil, glume an7s, other natural site characteristics. b'. Correlate residential densities to availability of water aad sewage disposal and proximity to other public facilities, c. Relate residential densities to in°teatsity and compatibility of adjacent uses Planning for Chico .Airport Area Page .5. 4 d. Balance ro.gi(iential densities with traffic carrying capaci,tirs pf cxi8tin,g and proposed circulation plan's. (Consider Present traffic voluflies and future road projects.) E.l Economic Growth.; a. Provide sites and facilities to accommodate a V-11ra.ety of cconOmi.c activities. E.2 Pror)eryC, Ri.'. ts: a. maintain. economic use and value o. private: property. E.3 Commercial Services: b Coordinate future commercial Kaci 7 'tze�"�: s rapt. exa.st i.ng and proposed transportation systems, utilities and other public facilities. .,.. c. Designate -sufficient land for commercial facilities . to fulfill needs for services and employment. B.4 Manufacturi.n, Processing:and b. Locate industry near =y, major transportata.on a.ca.i.d.ta.es which carry raw materials, finished precincts and commuting worl�ers. c Direct new industry to locations adequately served by major utilities and provide suffir,iont services and utilities to meet future indu;;trial needs, d_, Promote the full utilization of existing industrial areas (consider utilisation of Airport industrial Park.)' Compatibility of Business ,activities: e. Encourage the .5 separation a heavy 1n . u9t7ia an residential area with other uses, natural barriers or public facilities. P.1 Circulation stem: a. Provide transportation facilities FO- supply en e s .or, rapid, efficient, comfortable, and safe passage of people and commodities. b. provide a circulation system and plan that is consistent With and will support existing and proposed Patterns and densities of land use. c. Anticipate public facilities zaeed.;s ser land acquisition and new constrtIction kill be timely and take place with a minimum of cost. Planning -for Chico Airport Area Page —6- F.2 p,2 Water and Sewer System: a. Encourage expansion of public water a st�vrer systems tens where development nt to be served conforms to adopted land use plans. F.3 Drainage and Flood Control. Facilities: a. Plan raa.nagb C"a—CT �ta,"OS to serve areas o utuxe urban growth b. Require adequate drainage improvements for new development. (Natural drainage is poor in much of airport area.) G.lualit ; of Environment : a. Maintain public health and . sa ety requiring proper location and design for uses with Offensive odors, dust,, smoke, light, traffic, virbration, explosives, pollutants, insects and similar blighting influences, G.2 Noise: a. Consider recommended noisc levels in review of proposed development, b. Locate noise -sensitive uses away from airports: G.7 Archneolo ical Sites: a. Identify and evaluate all, cu tura resources impacted 'by proposed projects before approval and devel0rt7ent b, Preserve significant sites or require °their detailed investi'g'ation by competent archaeologists. (Consider high probsbi.li.ty of archaeological sites along stream beds.) FI.1 Fire Hazards : h, (;,aide development to areas with adequate Eire protection services. RELEVANT CONSIDtP.ATIONS _FkQ\I NOISEW-LIrTIE, T Table IV -6 POL t CY IMPLEMENTATION 1, Endeavor to maintain an, acceptahle 1. Adopt a County noise noise etiVironnent in all areas oC ordinance„ Consider the County _ noise levels recommended inFig ure IV -7, Land Ilse Compatibility for Co,mnun- ity Noise Environments during environmental. rev'icl-' Page -7- POLICY 2 Ifliere possible, control the 2, .4� sourcq$ of transportation noise to in 1, intain acceptable levels, 4. Plan for airport devOlOPMent 4. and disco-urage noise -sensitive activities near airports. H P LEME NTA,r i qN, Consider noise in the 10 cation and design o� cl County roads o Locate aircraft flight paths away from developed areas whero feasible. Locate noiSe-s0nsitivO uses away froni aiTVOrt-8, prop,-kTe specific Airport EnvioTns plans for Chico and Oroville airports. Encourage compatible uses around airports. 6. FINDING: State legislation requires noise insulation of nevy mui.ti-family dWC11ings constructed withill the 60 dB noise exposure contours. 7. Cooperate Witl) the incorporated 7. Exchange noise contour cities to resolve Mutual noise information. Develop pToblemsi compatible noise control programsi Figure IV -7 'AND USE! COMPATIBILITY FOR COWUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS" Chart Land Use Normally Acceptable Cate: or Ma:ximum, Noise Exposure Single-'-amily residential CNEL 60 multi -family -residential CNEL 65 Commercial CNEL 70 Industrial CNEL 75 Agricultural CNEL 75 RELEVANT CONSTTYPJZATIONS FROM SAFETY BLE"ItINT Map Within areal of heavy groundwater Withdrawal and potential sullsi4ence- Er i 6sion potential of airport area varies by slope lap 111-2, and soil from none to slight to moderate. map 111-3 Soils in airport area are moderately and highly expansive.' 11ap 111-4 AT I -ea. has modcarate natural fire hazard ivitb extreme hazard on foothill areas to the cast, 1 ,. Planning for Chico Airpofrt , re;:r P a e, -8. W Table 111-,3 ff L -X1. 6, Determine the level oe water sttPpl.; es nece.ss�Iry for naVt develo mont £oX� -fre poxteetion purposes. 7 Ensue that road access for Aela devaloriment is adecivate for fixe protection; purposes, RPLPVANT COiNSIDERATIOiJS FRONT .SEISMIC SAPPTY ELEMENT Aitip 11 1 Several nearby recorded earthquake epicenters. possible and inferred faults several miles to the east, �;ap ll r2 Sedimentary seals in area have generally moderate liquefaction potential. RELEVANT CONSIOER.A,rimS FROM SC ETITC itTCitWAYS ELEMENT Na existing ar proposed scenic highways in area. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS OPEN SPADE ELEMENT Recommendations: 2 .E The County should discourage urban development isolated from existing develaPment an,l; urban centers unless such a need can be determined. 3,B Agricultural zones s1loul'a a11alq Only open space uses described in this plan and necessary related structures. 3.0 A minimum parcel size of 5 to 110 acres should he specified for each agricultural zone ,LEVkNT CONSIDERATIONS FROtj C0?1SFRVkTI:ON ELEMENT 'l Policies sha►ild be developed to require that all high~ density developments be Provided domestic water from approved community systems, e(i an P.3.3 This urban development should be COOevelopment�th glari overall drainage and flood Jap-- "Visheries" „tud Creels is shoj%rn as warMwish habitat: ,eSa'EVANT C0NSIr7r�'�1TInNs PRO,'! CjpCitt�ATI0N ELE"itNT �..--..�..._�.,,..�...«� ate. ..�,.. P .6 , 7 he comrencl�xta ons . (Summ ra zel) Coordinate circulation systemnl carts system parts rn all jtirisc is ions. i to land Use requirements. Locate and design circulztion iaCilit+ es to benefit both existing; and X)roposect vises. Planning for Chtco Airport Area Page „9. Deserve rights -of -wa°y adequate for expected traffic volu les. Balance and integrate all circulation Trades. P . G . 8 Airports should be located where approach zones may , be so oriented as to minirrrize hazard and nuisance to present and potential adjoining land uses. P.6.9 Uses normally accommodating or attracting large con— centration. of people should be discouraged from locating within the approach zones of existing airports. RELEItANT CONSIDERATIONS PROM HOCISING ELEMENT' P.7 , 95 Pol icy Flan and Implemention Program 12. Provide Housing Sites with Adequate Public Facilities and, Services Action, planning and the Local Agency Formation Commission sero a cooperate to insure sufficient housing sites with utilities and public facilities. Through zoning and the General Plan, Planning should establish orderly patterns of growth of residential developments and community facilities. Planning for Chico Airport Arca Pale -10 Area of .Concern: The area of concern in tthis project includes all ..,--�---a------.� unx.ncorporateci�land ad aceitt, near or affected by the (;trice ;�tinicipal "Airport and especially axeas �Jitl�in Speas'''Compatible Land Use Zones." 14owever, no recommendations aro made for areas where the existing zoning is consistent with both Speas' criteria and the policies and criteria of the County General Plan, Such areas include the "A -40p1 zoning north of Rock Creek, the i'S-R►r and "811""1" zoning below Lupin Avenue and its easterly extension, the recent 11SR-3" zoning on 130 acres just east of Cohasset Road, and the "A -R" and '"SR -l" zones in the Garner Lane arca. In addition, no consideration is given 'here to the consistent zoning proposed separately in the "North Chico rezone" area south of Sycamore Creek and the Pleasant 'Valley Drainage Ditch. Finally, no rezoning is proposed for the clear zone now being acquired by the City of Chico on both sides of Cohasset Road south of the airport. All of the property herein proposed for rezoning; is currently zoned +,A-2" (General,) , The area is generally bounded by Rock Creek on the nojrth, by Highway 90 on the west, by Sycamore Creek on the south, and by large parcels in grazing use on the east. To expedite the consistent zoning of "i1-2" areas, we have included in thisproposal all of the area previously considered as the "Garner -Keefer" project. Planning Proposals: Enclosed is a copy of the proposed Land Use Plan Map or t e P y air art area recently approved by the Commission and now under consideration by the Hoard. The revisions in this area consisted of changing some of the "Grazing - Open Land" and "Orchard and Field Crop" designations to "Rural Residential". Most of the rezoning recommended here is consistent with that map; proposals requiring corallary changes in the Land lyse Plan "tap are two in areas alortl, Cohasset Road, a conmerclal zone and a public zone on Iiighway 09, and moving the southern boundary of the ,, ' " g Sycamore . Rural P��s�,dentiaJ. designation down to S caMore Creek Recommended zoning for the airport area is shoi,rn on the large map enclosed, as wall as the existing land use.. Rezoning proposals :are discussed below by the appropriate Land Ilse Plan ,designation; discussion f'ocl*ses on the designation criteria and relevant zoning p ► .a. factors from the :Land ttsc Flerlent as well as S ea.s criteria. Grazing Incl open -'Land; There are three large parcels within the area o concernw ]c are in Land Conservation Act agreements and talus designated. as "Grazing: and Open Land". After considering existing parcel sizes and L. C A. criteria,it is recommended that is oumed the two parCe by Thomasson directly north of the airport , be rezoned"A'-160" and tree parcel owned by Bennett i,;ast of Garner Lane be rezoned to "A4011. Rural residential: IIost of t'.le land around the airport is designated `as"ituraJ Res clential." because it is level,, natural hazards are mi.ni,mal, the soil is poorly sU ted to crop production, the area is }�lmnning for Chico Airport Area Page] not served by community water and sewer systems, and access to otter services and facilities is reasonably good. The most relevant zoning tactors in this area are aircraft noise, the exist~ in,g parcel sizes and dwelling; densities, soil conditions, distance from the airport and industrial uses, and effect, on. grazing and other adjacent uses. Consistent with Spea.s' recommondations and the pour insulation qualities of mobile homes, most of the pro- posed zones do not allow this type of dwelling. Assuming; the Board approrres the Land Use Moment revisions now under consideration, the southern boundary of the "Rural Residential" designation in. this -area will be a straight oast -west line ore - half mile north of Eaton. Road, This line represents the northern boundary of urban designations on the Chico area Land Use Plan Map and is nothing more than a larger -scale indication of the general boundary shovm on the County -wide Land Use Plan Map of 1971 HOW - ever, that boundary does not appear to fit the distinctions between the designation criteria for "Rural. Residential" and "Law Density Residential". At this time thF;re are no plans to extend service beyond Sycamore Creel: for either the City of Chico's sewer system or California (Vater Company's domestic water system. Based on that fact and cur evaluation of development trends and demands, we recommenel that the boundary between urban and rural residential designations be shifted to coincide exactly vtith Sycamore Creek and the Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel all the tray from Highway 99 east to Bidwell Park. This change in the Land Use Plan Map will formalize the significance of a large drainage channel generally recognized as a natural barrier to urban development. The lowest prop.osed density is the "A-40" recommended for 1575 acres ofrazing land east of Cohassett Road, 1.100 acres of which is owned band bordered by ""Tri -4011 zoning on the north y Bechtel ac and IVilliamson Act property to the east and west, The other 3 o 40 res in acres consists of 5 parcels, 2 of about size and 3 over 100 acres. Surrounding use is currently grazing; however, the 130 acres to the west recently zoned, 115R-3" will Probably be developed with large homes,ites in the near future '"A-4011 is also recotnmonded for about 100 acres of undeveloped land owned by Peter.�en and Garner just south of the airport. consists of the portions of 4 This area parcels that remain after the City completes its acquisation. of a clear zone. The remaining land is proposed for "A-40" because it is mostly within the projected CNEL 60 noise contour, the adjacent land acquired by the City will be leased for agricultural uses only, and because there Will be no road access to Cohasset Road for new development "A-401' would have been proposed ;for the 250 acres owned by Drake north of Sycamore Creek except that all of the existing lots in the old Bidwell 17th Subdivision`' are less than 40 acres. The recommended. "SR -1011 anti ""A-20"" zoning thus reflects the actual size of legal parcels, :even though the land is currently under one owner" ship, now used for grazing and surrounded by other grazing land at present pl�,nning for Chico kirport Area pnge -12- "-ennosod for several areas nort-h or wr-tst of tho airport and east of flicks Lane, The * most intensely developed areas are the recent 11agenridge Rancliettes, Keefer Ridge Estates and Hageoridgd Country Si)bdivisions along Keefer Road; of the 41 total parcels only 10 are below three acres in size and about half have been developed with large homes. Because of the recont develop- mAnt trends in the area and the soil conditions, two large adjacent parcels are also proposed for 11SR-311. The exiting residential area directly north of the airport is proposed for "'SR -3'" because of the above reasons and because of its proximity to the airport industrial area. There are five 2 1/2 acre parcels in this area and seven parcels of five acres or move. 1"SR-311 zoning is also recommended for about 250 acres between the airport and -Hicks Lane. Existing'developrient consists of five - dweilings on, seven parcels. Development should 1,e limited to a three -acre density dile to noise factors, soil conditions and the close proximity to airport activities. A maximum density of one unit per acre is recommended for the remainder Of tl',e "Rural Residential" designation, an area of about three square mj.l:es. This recomme)idation is based on the distance from the airport, recent development trends, soil conditions and good road access: The ultimate development of this three square - mile area will go far toward fulfillme"t of future demands for suburba.n residences in the ChicoaTea, The 11SR-111 zoning propose reflects the recent development trends in the area as well as the low proportion of mobile homes at present. Low Density Residential and Medium )density Residential: All of tl�e I _ I — area of concern Syc eek is -present ly d'esignatea for residential development at urban densities. For the various reasons discussed below, only a small part of this area is recommended fol rezoning with this project. Abottt 150 acre's fronting on Hicks Lane, Sycamore Drive, Todd Court and Brett Court is currently experiencing urban subdivision activity and extension of Cal Water servic,::m. We recommend that this "A-211 area be included in the airport project and that it be rezoned to "A -SRI", the Presen-t zoning of a large adjacent residential area to 'the south., Other "AwVl areas below Sycamore Creel, between Cohasset Road and flighwr-y 99 are inclurled in, the ,.North Chico 'Rezone" 'project for zoning, CW$ifi- which an LIR is now, being, prepared. , The proposed, and recent trent's cations reflect the extensive existing, development and are consistent with both Speqsl recommendations and the, present eesignations on the Land Use Plan 'Map. An, area of about 40 acres between Cohasset Road, Sycamore creel, and the Pleasant Valley ?rain. age Ditch Ilaoriginally included in the "North Chico Rezone" pro- ject but was deleted because: it was determined the area i,,,as not IV table for urban residential development elopment an.A.thus 'required a su' change in the General. Plan designation prior to rezoning. Planning- 0 Planning for Chico Airport Area Page -13 - proposals for that area are consiacred below ondor tl,,O "til'al"Ilt- tial" heading As discussed OaTlieT, the planning conMct of airpuri. protorlon versus development on non -prime land is partizularly dif,�IcJlt in the 600 acres bounded by SycamoTc Creels `,version, Channi-I on the north and east, Cohasset Road on, the west and Lupin ffirenuo and '*5 easterly oxW ioi- on the south. Based on safety AO?.ctors =6 n nve-ej)r and projected 'noise levels, particularly the future CNh ", a,,,. 6T R. Dixon Speas has recommended that about lOr .res ,t zonad frr agriculture and no residences allowed. This ai SP .7ompatible Land Use Zone II P, adjoins the end of t', cjaa, .j , recently acquired by the City and is restricted in or to prevent any residential development within an expanded CNEL 65 contour catised by any unforeseen increases in jet traffic. In addition, Speas recommends 80 acres for "SR -311 zoning, 220 acres for IISR411.1 zoning , Rand .20n acres for 'IS -RII zoning i , , I . It is apparent that Speas' recommendations are at odds with the County's present land use designations in the northeast Chico area. The boundary between urban and agricultural designations on C) the Chico General Plan 'Map is somewhat more consistent with Speas proposals but it must also be pointed out that the area is within the adopted Spheres of Influence for the City and that plans are underway td extend City sewers to this areai Because the poor soils would allow only very low densities on septic tanks, the City's _planning for annexation and sewers enhances the, conflict with airport protection. Ther problem has become more immediate with Dan DraRes recent submittal to the City of a specific plan for development of a variety of re 4(Jen.tial and commercial uses on the 560 acres he oiMs in this area. Implementation of an approved plan will also require later City approval of prazoning, annexation and subdivision. We recommend that the Planning Commission, therefore, not initiate a%y rezoning or plan changes in the Northeast Chico area at this time. This recommendation is based on the findings that the City of Citico operates the airport in question, the City initiated and Coordinated the PAA grant program which provided Speas' ,Air- port ,Environs Plan", and the City has the primary responsibility for determining the development of annexed property. The aunty will still have the opportunity to comment at several steps in the review process and,, if annexation of Drake"s property is not approved by the City or LAFCo, can initiate planning proposals for the Northeast Chico area at a later date. Public: The only Public designation on the present land use plan 6a`p�,? for the airport itself. We would also recommend Public designation for the odd -shaped, 25 -acre parcel located beti.,reen Garner Lane and Highway 99 just northof their intersection. Thi land was purchased by the California Tlepa-rtment of',Transyportatio,. a number of years ago to provide space far the northerly extensi, n:, of the Highway 99 freeway and a full interchange with Garnier Lane, Planning for Chico Ai rport. Area Page -14 - however, Communication$ with Cal Trans indicate that fandilig 'for this fTQejv,,1y extension is many years off,, TIAQ public designation would not only allow the extorsion and interchange but, if'the. ro project were not funded and the land sold off-, would also roq,U1 a future buyer to initiate specific zoning for sone tYI)e Of private use. Commercial: There are no -Commercial designations in the area Of concern at present but we believe one area of about 20 acres deserves commercial decIgnation because of its accessible location and existing development. , The area consists of nine parcels on the east side of Highway 99 just north of the Esplanade, inter- section. Present uses include the sale of farm chemicals, food processing, lumber sales, a ski shop, masonry sales, and an antique s1lop. I Due to the variety of commercial uses and the highway location we recommend a 11C-2" (General Commercial) zoning along t�rith the �Genaral plan - 'change This area` was previously -proposed as Commercial in the "Garner -Keefer Area" project and actually represents the northerly end of the Esplanade commercial corridor. industrial: Three small areas are recommended for industrial zoning 7anc designation. The first area is vacant 15 acres in size, surrounaed by airport p�operty ca 3 sides and parItiallv, by Rock Creek on the. north, andis already indicated as !'Industrial" on the Land Ilse Plan 'iviap. The second area is a. 300 feet deep strip along three-quarters of a 'mile of Cohasset Road across from property WfIcTS p tile south end of the airport complex. The three involved applied for zoning 0 on the strip in'1976 but dropped ing ,o' ' this request pending the outcome f the airport plana project. The land is vacant with Poor soil conditi6ns and is separated from the "SR -511 area to the east by a small bluff.. This area should be designated as Industrial because of the road access and dominant adjacent uses and because it does not adequately fulfill the designation criteria for any other land use category. The third area recommended for Industrial designation contains mini - storage units, auto electric service, a plaster contractor, gas C, tank repair, tWo other bu-sinessass two churches and five dwellings. The 40-acte area bounded by, Cohasset Road, Sycamore Creek and the Pleasant Valley Orainage Ditch is recommended for industrial use not only because of the e.xisting-but ut also because 'Ife I)elieve I the air .)rt noise and safety factors make this a, poor site for any future re residential development. The three areas proposed for industrial u,80 above 'are all adjacent. to r 0,9 ider tial uses seS and zoning, "SR-3"in tWO cases and several urban ro5idential tones in the other: In order to prevent or he naqat its of noise, smoke, orors, bright lights, mitigate t ive effects ' ted '11 elimI etc, on those TeMI-dential areas, industri, Uses shoul.1-1 h , to those which are least t I kcly to create such impacts. Unfortunately, ourpresent 11,14-111 and 111i1-2"zoning classifications, the only zones 14 a variety cconsistent1withthe InJu-strial category, both A 110 of storage, processing and assembly uses which often do have, i' + ' L y PI mnning for Chico Airport Area page -1 5 - significant impacts. We recommend that the Commission consider a new industrial zoning classification somewhat more restrictive than our present of"111. ".Clio new .zone could be called "L-11' (Limited Industrial) and should allow those types of storage, or assembly whic?i do not pro- dt)co significant noise, odors, smoke,, vibration, bright lights or fire hazard, if the Commission agrees that, such � zone would be appropriate for the above sites or for any +other industrial area in the County, staff will prepare a complete draft ordinance for your review. �J- StATL' Al CAItFORNIA—TRAWPOM111ON AMNCY 9ISMUND C . 1ROWN JR4 oavornor w![Ams DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 01$TRIv J P.O. BOX 911, MARY5YME 95901 N' optoit ber 12, 19'r9 NI,,l v, I 1w OTT W.aRR ENGINEERS Gh,1 co Airport; ""1v1roa ) 1�ozono xil 'f)C)O9 .:1.0 j Nis^: Earl D. Nelson Environmental Review ;�peci ali_o1 County of Butte //18r County Cczitor. Drive Oroville , California 9,r,965 Dear Mr. Nelson: Tlxank you for ,0110 opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for i-1110 proposed rezone of property in the vicinity of the Chico `1u.nd ci.pal Airport. We agree with the recommendation that a master circulation plan should be prepared for the arca (page Iia, environ- mental checklist). The circulation discussion should address impacts to Route 99 and other road" in the vicinity as a result of the traffic jjhi:ci,j lvould be t;encratod at buildout of the rezonc area, Sincerely:, JEO J. TROM]1&TORE District Director of Trvispor"U'llUion R. D4 Skidmor Cil e , Bn:viron,t ntal Branoli To Y me . Ann Elarkley, Chief Division of Transportation Flanning Department A-95 Coordinator Attention Art Lichtman 010111 October , 1979 hilm ,, Clearinghouse Chico Muni Airport Butts County From i IDEPAPTMiENT OF MANSPORTATION Dtvislon of Aoronauticr "aub,lecl, project Review - SCH #79091103 Rezoning Environs of Chico Municipal Airport The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a DEIR for the project,. through which Butte County proposes to rezone 6,180 acres around the existing Chico Municipal Airport, We have examined the potential: effects in areas germane to our statutory responsi- bilities --that is, noise impact on the area ,from airport operations, safety of those individuals who reside or would reside in the airport E=nvirons and the airport users themselves, and encroach- ment of ,incompatible :Land uses on the airport, with subsequent public pressure to curtail operations or close the facility. All of these concerns appear to be justified by the proposed residential character of the proposed rezoning. The DEER should address each of these areas comprehensively. Another factor of noteworthy interest --although not strictly in our area of expertise --is the potential disappearance of prime agricultural land into residential developments. Such inroads on prime agricultural land are not in consonance with the announced objectives of the State "Urban Strategy', that is, protecting agricultural lands from acquisition for urban purposes. The track record shows that increased residential activity in the vicinity of airports inevitably results in conflicts, irreconcilable and incompatible land use patterns, and efforts to shut down airports -;-a disappearing resource in theinown right. We urge strongly that the ultimate zoning product provide for buffering residentialareas from the airport and airport traffic patterns, through uses of industrial or other compatible land use zone's. This should be clearly detailed in the DEM Safety y � 010111 October , 1979 hilm ,, Clearinghouse Chico Muni Airport Butts County From i IDEPAPTMiENT OF MANSPORTATION Dtvislon of Aoronauticr "aub,lecl, project Review - SCH #79091103 Rezoning Environs of Chico Municipal Airport The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a DEIR for the project,. through which Butte County proposes to rezone 6,180 acres around the existing Chico Municipal Airport, We have examined the potential: effects in areas germane to our statutory responsi- bilities --that is, noise impact on the area ,from airport operations, safety of those individuals who reside or would reside in the airport E=nvirons and the airport users themselves, and encroach- ment of ,incompatible :Land uses on the airport, with subsequent public pressure to curtail operations or close the facility. All of these concerns appear to be justified by the proposed residential character of the proposed rezoning. The DEER should address each of these areas comprehensively. Another factor of noteworthy interest --although not strictly in our area of expertise --is the potential disappearance of prime agricultural land into residential developments. Such inroads on prime agricultural land are not in consonance with the announced objectives of the State "Urban Strategy', that is, protecting agricultural lands from acquisition for urban purposes. The track record shows that increased residential activity in the vicinity of airports inevitably results in conflicts, irreconcilable and incompatible land use patterns, and efforts to shut down airports -;-a disappearing resource in theinown right. We urge strongly that the ultimate zoning product provide for buffering residentialareas from the airport and airport traffic patterns, through uses of industrial or other compatible land use zone's. This should be clearly detailed in the DEM Safety 4. "'.i MEMO } rjr-,PAR7fA4NT (A-' THE AWAY SACRAMENTO UISTRICI C. )RPS OP r.N01Nl Rfa' �. 650 CAPITOL MAIL + 4 SACRAMENTO +;1kWFORNIA 0151314 A 1i. I.: Tlplx;t e. til• 20 Septembet 1979 Mr,. Earl D. Nelson, Director Butte County EInvirorimantal Review Department 18-F County Center Drive oroville, CA 95965 Tear Mr, Nielson: This is 3n response to Mr. Stephen A. Streeter''s letter of 29 August 1979 requesting Coumrient% on preparation of a Kraft F rail'ironmental Impact Report (DEZR) for the re�:oning of 6,180 acres near Chico Municipal Airport, north of 'Chico. Based on our review of the Environmerl:tal Checklist Form (Appendix F) we believe that any flood problem should be fully discussed in ti -to DExR. The discussion should include impacts of rezoning on the effectiveness and integrity of the existing Chico and Mud Creeks and Sandy Gulch Flood Control Project. Interior drainage problems with respect to the project levees should also be discussed (Item 3b) When your DETR is available, tae would appreciate receiving a copy for review. As requested, Mr. John Saia may be contacted (916-440-2464). Sincerely, GEORGE C. WEDDELL Chief, Engineering Division Co Farm shed Copy Air. Stephen A streets nmr, Enviroeatel Review Specialist, Butte Co. : Envtronmantal Review Department, 18-V County Center 'Dtive, OVOvil e,, CA 95965 �1 f I "j OTT WAS 1 CIR tj4(i1tqt�i APPENDIX L NOTICE OF PREPARATION George Weddell, Butte Couri•ty Ln•viromaental TO: Arm Cori)--, oi' En ..`x( `` RROW: Review De�arrtment "(Responsible'Agency ., `"•' a:dAg,encF 650 Capitol Mallx'18--F Count Center Dry. (Address)� ("94dress) Sacrament o , CA 2"8,14 Oro•vill e_5_ CA ? 965' SUBJECT; Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Butte Countwill be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. W Your agency will need to use the FIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. z The project description, location, and the probable environmental z effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initia W Study /7 is = is not, attached. oDue to the tirrnf, 11iiiits mandated by State law, your response must be x sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice Please send your response to EaL,l D. Nelson at the address shown above. We will, need t e name`oz^ a' -contact person in your agency. PPAOJECT TITLE: C'-!jco Airport. Ex.viror,s Rezoxla �, r, 7 .r, ;j�'; 1:�1t' �.. courtly Pl�Jxl.ir; �i©i1Tul:;S�Cr, 'RCU ECS APP -CAN 1 , IF A y DA T A, . .. rr�c� Signature•'. Title Telephone 17rx ,1 q<ti9.1lP'��it�a f[}mtfi nOWN R 00011*r pR � AIR Rr=SQU1~;C ES 90ARtD 1102 Q 5194 Py O. 8OX 1S1 WRAMt NIQ, CA 0501 i`7I6) 322-6154 September 26, 1979 Mr. Lar! bi Nelson Butte County Lnvironmental R( -view Department 1118-P County Center 'Drive Orov'ill:s, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Nelsen; We have reviewcra tile, September 6, 1,979 Notice of' reparation for the Chico Ali -port Environs Rezone Project graft Environmental Impact. Report. Enclosed is a recorunended outline which will assist in the r�reparatiun F the: air quality analysis for the proposed project. For additional inforitlation, please contact Jerry 5chiebe of my staff at (916) 445-o96o, Slncerely; A t / Gary Ayid, Chief Urbon- Progalms Branch Enclosure '.jt��tti n P y�. w �l { RFCORiE LDi D ENVI�,OfaMFNTAi IMPACT fZEPOft1' ANALITY ANALYSIS I. Environmental Setting A. Air pollution potential (individually discuss meteorology, climate, and topography of the project area, and their re- lationships which crea*e con air pol7ut'onditions allowing ,the formation of ). B. Environmental effects of air pollutants on receptors. Co Regulations effecting air quality (federal, state,, regional, county, and city). D Existing air quality. 1. Local and regional conditions and trends. 2. Present and future sources of emissions. a, Stationary sources. b, Mobilo sources: 3. Ambient air quality data (relate to standards). 11. Impact of. the Proposed Proic A. Areawid impact (,tons/day), I. Stationary source calculations (CO, P;Ox,_f1C, TSP, S02) if_applicable 2. Mobile source calculations (CO, Nox, HC, TSP). 3 Summarize data in tabular form and compare it to existing emission5. B. Localized impacts (calculate potentially large Co concentrations in areas or con.,,rn and assess i.hpir implct on :',onsitive' receptors) C. Summarize impacts of alternatives to project. TIIF i�4i atitin Measures 'for Preferred Alternative A. All feasible measures. I. Measures to reduce stationary source emissions. 2. Measures to reduce mobile source emissions. ERMGY CON UMP', IOX ANNUAL PROJECTED INCREASE IF PROPOSE) PROJECT WERE Increase Energy Soured Amount: Percent Natural gas therms) 1,859 200 11400 electricity megawatt hours) 17,0.0 1.,400 Fuel` gallons) 2,l6l,r,80) 1.1400 The above data indicates that energy conswnption would sub- stantially ub -stantiall.y :increase if the proposed project were implemented, and full baildout eventually oc ouvred Potential mitigationmeasures to hi:ghor energy uses are listed below: 1.. Increase public transit service to project site, 2. Form car/van pools for work -trips 3. Revi. erg, rides' iaring plans for use in project and Chico area. 4. Encourage bicycle or roped use through construction of separate lanes for these vehicles Enact local gas tax to help support mass transit programs. 5. Review comme kl retail applicants for compatible use near the pi`ij ect site. 7. Encourage residents 'to conform to Local state and federal energy guidelines for insulating new houses, and retrofitting older ones'. This can be accomplished through coordinated education efforts involving PG&E and .ocal redia programs, advertising available low intc :est 1lc ans, tax benefits, and ;long --term savings. 84 Enact loca;4, ordinance requiring all new housing to be designed, for maximum energy efficiency,, based on reAi �egies (ncluding active and passive solar systems). 2_ ^ ..i., 0OV1ZaNQFVS OPPIC1 PLANNING OFFICC OF LANNING AND 1�CSMARCH �nYltgninnni»I ltwvinry bu_pf+ y r 14gb TCNTH STREET SACRAMENTO 05014 r1 1980 EDMUND G, BROWN JR. FEBJ nbvGltMoh i3uHr County, r,abruary 4, 1980 Earl D. nelson L"nvi.r. . Review Dept. of Butte Co 18-F County center. Dr. oroviller CA 95965 Subject SCHO 790911.01 Chico Airport Environs Rezone Dear Mr., Nelson: Strata agencies have commented on your drat enVironmen al document (see attached). If you sjould like oo discu:z-s the concerns and rec� .,om.Ir,enciatians in uhe.i-��mY mot ents contact the staff from the a agencies "4hoso names and addresses appear on the cor.�r,.ents. you may fori ally respond to the agencies' comments by wtitin5 t.o them (including the Static Clearinghouse number on all such correspondence) 'Nhen, filing the Final EIR, you must= include all commer,s and responses (State EiR Guidelines, Section 15140). State vie+rr of lcur draft environmental- document will then bo. To aid in preparing eftvironmental assessIT:ants on `uzure projects, �JGu should send to state age�nloies and the ofrios of Planning and Reaearcn your NYatice of rrepa ation as prescribed by �z- 884 ana Section 150606 of the FIR Guidelines ? i you would Gare for aS is --'ance Or 1- the need arises, Office 0:ff planning .and Fe ei.rC I is available to he'.p if:ant:i'f respo:Ysib'e agenci s, distribute .ioticeS Of-Pr �?'Jarata o:t, OZgc'1t1i?e coor:�iriata on meetings, mediate disputes, and hold .consolidated 'ttuarngs Please contact rrtna PolVos at (916) 445--0613 i you ha , e any quer bio;'IS , Sinerel y, z tel ` ;y .1.-wa.mso State Clearinghouse Attachment cc' Keit fellows, DWR of CuJifornia Me'mo ra nd u m T To I Ms. Ann Barkley, Chief Division of Transportation Planning Department A-95 Coordinator Attention: F. Darrell HuOum From i DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION bly1slon at Aeronauflcs Business and Yrtinspatiatlon A sency Patel January 1, 1980 File t Clearinghouse Chico municipal Airport Butte County Sublecti Project Review - SCH #79091103 - Chico Airport Environs Rezone - a Rezonin of Approximately 6s18O Acres of General Agricultural Land (A-2� to Several Rural Residential Designations and the Subsequent Development Which Would be Allowed Under the Proposed Land Uses The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has, reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report riled for this project. our, review centered primarily on areas of concern germane to our statutory responsibilities, i.e., noise impact on the project from airport operations, safety of residents of the airport environs and of the airport users themselvesi encroachment of incompatible land uses on the airport, with subsequent public pressure to curtail operations or close the airport) and the Impact of the project on the surface transportation network serving the area, on October 22, 1979, we commented on the Notice of Preparation for the PEIZ for this project, and outlined our concerns) concerns which remain largely unallayed by the DEIR. A copy of our previous remarks is included in the appendices to the DEIR. Noise: The DFIR treats the subject of noise comprehensively; however, Figure 3 (Rezone Districts) portrays 7 zone parcels proposed for SR -4 (Suburban Residential - three -acre minimum parcel size) immediately adjacent to the airport boundaries. Only two of those zone parcels are buffered from the airport by thin strips zoned for 1,1 (Limited Industrial) uses. Our earlier comments pointed out ' that residential development's were incompatible land uses for the airport,, Mitigating measures, such as thermo-pane windows and increased insulation, could result in relief to residence Interiors, but, would do nothing to relieve those.engaged in outdoor activities. We recommend noise tasemonts be obtained for all parcels adjoining the airport. Mo. Ann Barkley, Chief Page 2 January 7, 1980 SafetY-: The DEIR cites concerns for safety in the Airport environs, but suggests that such concerns are not significant In view of the airpoitlsaccident/safety record. Vie -are inclined to agree; nevertheless, all concerned should concede that tile possibility of an accident does exist. Incompatible ncompatible Land Uses: While the DEIR expresses concerns for safeguarding the airport from incursions of incompatible land uses, it Persists in the proposal for residential developments right up to the airport boundaries. In one instance, the DEIR dismisses the effects of the airport on the rezoned parcels; however, it does not, but should, express concerns about the effect of the project (rezoned parcels) on the airport. impact on Surface Transportation; The DEIR analyzo,$ the project impact on the existing road network and points out potential deficiencies in capacity: One major, deficiency cited, is the limited. availability of east -west paths, We concur with the comments of District 3, Department of Transportation, in recommending preparation or a master circulation plan for the area. We are also drawn to Appendix C of the DEIR, in which an Inter -depart- mental memorandum to the Planning Commission reflects some disagreement with the proposed rezoning. The issues cited should be carefully reviewed and reconciled prior to preparation of the Final EIR and actual implementation of the rezoning project. When the Final EIR is prepared, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on its contents, Tt�� ov ft the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. 4 A V ' Vb A. i -ier Deputy C ief Attachment fi 1 b ♦ ,/�347M NlJ the memorandum, Environmental Review 'Direc'tor resp r� , of January? 19BO from the 'Department o� Pransportation, Division of leronautics. the le ax`E;mnn o 'x�ar apo t tion relate Concerns expressed by .� ,p and. impact or' sur- ta n:o�.so, safety, land use c.ompatab �.�ty, face transp vta'tIOn. o �� h res proposed. in, the airport vicinity, Although identa� use is p p is r it should be recognized t aeelhsizessproposedein thelax asp with three -acre minimum p with reatex potentialrneoise ms parcels. eThis �confiGu.ration��was r density such as one ac, p selected as a buffering mechan sm hichn �.ino with the ori ginal overall intent of the rezone, AW aixisti the very concerns ernsrovide a a ex - of of protect .on, to the airportg ro riate pressed by the Department of 'Transportation . AP.ppal�tica densities in the ail -port Vicinity in l the ressed judgement which must be de -ire$ Of�'land fowners, and various ! county growth policies, environmental and, economic factors. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RE"SEAIRCH 1400 TENTH STREMT SACRAMENTO 0581 EDMUND G, BROWN lily Gnv�tlNgn February 4 1980 Mr. Earl Nelson ` Director Environmental Review Department 13-F County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Dear Mr. Nelson, In addition to administering the coordinated review under the EIR` Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Clearinghouse has performed its own review and comment of the Chico r Airport Environs Rezone, SCH# 79091103. We appreciate the County's concerns for proposing land uses that are compatible with continued operation of the Chico Airport, The County's concern for protecting the airport and recognition of growth patterns in the area give the foundation necessary to propose land uses most compatible for the area. To assist in the consideration of alternative land use proposals a copy of the Urban Strate�! is enclosed as a guide for development that is bath efficlent�Wie u,e of public services and considerate of the environment's capabilities; The Urban Strategy emphasizes three fundamental principles of sound land use planning; renew and maintain existing urban areas, develop vacancreast presently land within existing and urban and suburban p by public services, and direct new development outside existing urban ,areas on land that is immediately adjacent. The Urban Strategy objectives are particularly appropriate when one considers the direct consequences of development in the area of the proposed rezone. The rezone has significant limitations in its ability. to minimize the effects on water quality, air quality, transportation patterns and historical resources. N page two February 4, 1980 Mr. Nelson Based upon the soils in the rezone area, there is limited capacity to absorb new waste water through septic tanks and leachfields. The County, should consider a zoning standard that recognizes the constraints of the area on utilizing these septic tanks and leachfields. The one acre minimum zoning proposal is not realistic in light of the soils in r the area. There are other problems with the one acres minimum and other, larger minimum acreages. This type of ranchette development leads to the complete abandonment of productive agricultural activity at a time when state and national policy encourages the preservation of our scarce agricultural land resource. The large minimum lot size under consideration for this essentially rurd'1 area has other undesirable consequences. The dispersion of dwelling locations leads to the inefficient --higher cost—allocation of public services including roads, recreation, schools and school transportation, utilities,.among others Therewillbe a significant increase in air emissions from the commuter traffic of residents of the proposed rezone area to shopping and {job locations in the Chico area. Any induced growth from shopping facilities to accomodate the project proposal run the risk of undermining existing commercial areas in the Chico area. The region would not be well served by establishing commercial facilities that compete with existing services in the Chico area. To meet the demand for new housing the County should consider the Urban Strategy's priority for developing vacant and underutilized land within existing urban and suburban areas or directing other new development so that it is contiguous with existing urbanized areas. The document cites the high incidence and liklihood of yet undiscovered archeologically significant artifacts.. Some municipalities have undertaken comprehensive cultural resource surveys before committing to particular land use patterns. This can avoid subsequent conflicts between development and resource preservation. The costs of such comprehensive studies can be amortized across the proposed new developments as they occur: In summary, the County has demonstrated a compelling need to lend foresight to land uses near the Chico airport. The Urban Strategy offers a useful and practical guide to planning that protects not only the environment but but also demands onpublic services. Given the reductions in the cap4ciiy of state and local government to underwrite new development, the County will want to minimize both short and longer term demands on public revenues, from the project. These demadns are likely to include air quality miti9 tion, transit, schools, waste treatment and other public services. Sinc el 1 S e hamon State Cle ringhouse 11 b Li vironmantal Review 7Jixector' s rosponse to comments from the State Clearinghouse as Haat forth in their letter of 11`bbruary 4 1980. Comment, 1. )The State Urban Strategy Report encourages development within existing urban areas and on sites immediately adja0ent. ReVonr se 1 The amount; of ;Land made avail-abl.e Cor development an its proximity to -the existing urban area is a local. politic�Al judgement % be made in light; of Local policies and citizen preferences as well as economic and environmental factors. Additional consideration of -these factors will occur during the public hearing process, which may well result in an adjustment in densities or zone boundaries prior to a final decision Comment:_. The one acre minimum zoning is noir realistic, in light of area soils. Response 22. The, proposed one acro minimum parcels generally fall Jith . the areas more suitable fox septic �;anY€s, such as the liana and Anita series soils. Tuscan and Scabland. areas are generally shown for larger parcel. sizes. Allowable densities ultimately will be dependent on site specific soil, tests conducted pursuant to Health Department requirements. Comment. Ranchette development precludes commercial agricultural use of prime soils Response,....._.J• App roximately 1500 acres of potentially productive r agricultural soils are found within -the rezone area. The loss of this area from production is acknowledged in the laxly as a potential impact. Modifications -to the rezone proposal- whioh reduce this impact may occur during the course of the public hearing ,process. if -the impact is allowed to occur, findings will, be necessary as -to why the impact is not being mitigated. Comment 4i Because of Long distances between residences, ranchettes lead to high casts of ProvidingPrOviding public servi:es including roads, recreation; schools and school transportation, utilities, etc. ResDonse 4. Rural: areas very often must be content with a lower level. of services than could be provided. ,for the name Cost in a more dense area. s ate o4 California The Resourc®s AsIoncy o9 California Memorandum Mr, James W. Burns, Project Coordinator To i Resources Agency, 13th Floor Dot®, 29 January 1980 Resources Building /Oonty of Butte Environmental Review Department 18-F County Center Drive �rtm�►�ntat tre�toF„ Orovi l le, CA 95965 a«pi, From t California ReKional Water Quality Control Board FEB * 4 1980 Central Valley Region 32019 Street, Sacramento, California 96816 Daffo Gamey Phone; 446:0210 Sublec r AIRPORT ENVIRONS REZONE OEIR(SCH#79091103) We agree with this report that the use of septic tank-1`eachfield systems have severe limitations in the Chico Airport vicinity due to poor soils and drainage. Since sewage disposal is a critical factor for land use planning in this area, the suitability of septic tank-leachfield systems should be determined in each proposed rezone area before a zone is established. Han area is unsuitable for septic tank-l,each•field systems, development will be prohibited unless this area is sewered to a cownunity treatment facility. If there are any questions, please contact me at (916) 322-1592. ANTHONY J. LANDI5 Area Engineer Sacrariento Watershed AJLJcis IIT b Environmental, Review Dir00tOV ' s response to the memorandum of January ,29, 1960, from the California Regional 'Water Quality Control. Board. Limitations on the use of septic tanks in certain arenas it a recognized limitation to development that it idontified. in the ]JIR. Butte County does not at thus time have funds available to do the necessary soil testing to further refine the available informat:i =4 This precise testing of specj.fic locations is normally accomplished at the time of development. If the information is not available at the time of the :pezaone some properties may be zoned to allow smaller parcels than can actually be achieved. Future parcel purchasers should be aware of this possibility and take it into account in 'their - development plans. The Herbarium California. State Univ.1, Chico Chico, CA 95929 24 January 1960 Mr. Earl; D. Nelson, Director Environmental Review Department tnvironmon4„1 Revlaw Dept. 16-"x' County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 JAN `181900 Re: Chico Airpowt Environs Rezone Draft EIR Bufto Count Dear Mr. Nelson, The area involved in the Chico Airport Rnvironfi, Rezone is very likely to support one or more species of rare and endangered plant;:, as was indieaied in the draft RIR for the project. I would like to concur with the recommendation that a field investigation be made to confirm or deny the ext stenoe of rare species and to plot their distribution if i,jund. However, I mast request that this survey be conducted before the proposed rezone is implemented. Only in this vray may effective mitigation measures be adopted to protect the plant populations in situ. Unfortunately, the flowering periods of species concerned range from February to July and multiple surveys may be required. Should rare and endangered plsnt populations be encountered (one population of Fritil__ laria pluuriflora has been seen on site), the plants and their immediate habitat should be protected by means of Habitat Conservation zoning or deeded easements. Transplantation or seed collection and dispersal are got seen as viable alternatives. Host such attempts at re-establiohment fail and even if they should succeed, the genetic mane- up of tho population could be irretrievably altered. The presu2vation of rare and endangered species must involve preservation of their 'habitat as well. This fact is :recognized in the State EIR Guidelines, Section 15161.6(b) (5). Finally, I should warn you that f ,u of the nine rare plant species mentioned on page 30 of the Draft EIR have been miso-spelled and so may be difficult to hook-up, should you desire further information on the species. For your convenience, the 7 plants of chief concern here axe: Oalycadenia f'remontii, Cuscuta Nowell anafrBu hod rbia hooveri, Fritillaria uluriflora, I,imnanthes flocosa sep. californica, Crcuttia greened, and Sidalcea robusta. If I may be of any further assistance please feel free to write of phone, Sa 0 /.sly,, \. r�Je "frsy D. Prouty s� r President Baso Plant 'Habitat Bvaluaticn of tho Chico Airport Environs Rezone James A. JO..erst J'effroy 1). Prouty 'March 1980 A. rare plant habitat evaluation was conducted as a mitigation measure for the pro- posed Chico Airport L�nvironxa )Rezone, an area of 6180 acres north of the dity of Chico. The intent of this evaluation was to identify those localities with "known populations of rare and endangered plants or areed which, as a result of their habitat, could be conaidergd potential, rare and endangered plant habitat. It is suggested that prior to any, :future development of areas identified in this report as potential rare plant habitat a field survey be conducted to verify the presence or absence of the suspect plants. A qualified botanist should be retained, by the developer,to survey those ,suspect areas when the rare plants can be positively identified. If rare plants are foxuid as a result of these additional eurveys, some form of mitigation should be required to protect the new populations involved. The habitat evaluation involved the consultation of maps and recent ae)°ial photo- graphs as well as ground -reconnaissance by vehicle and foot. Soils, soil moisture, land use, and grazing pressure, topography and existing vegetation were al.1 rostra-- mental. in defining potential rare plant habitat. During the course of the invest- igation neW populations of rare species were discovered and these, too, sided in. the delineation of critical habitat. Illustrated on the accompanying map are the suspected. and confirmed localities of three rare and endangered plant species. Several other species were nominated as having: the potential for occurenoe Within the boundaries of the subject rezone area. Subsequent field surveys have shown that the probability of these planta existing on-site is low. Those species with known populations ori -site are Fritil.larie. ,luriflora (PlIPL), the Adobe Lily, and Limnanthes floccosa asp. californica LIFO Wolly 'Meadow Foam, These two species and one additional speoies, 53�d�alcea: robusta,(SIRO) the + Butte Checker, are suspected to occur at several localities on the subject rezone area. These ;are identified on the accompanying map. Those of Butte County's rare plants not addressed in this reportareriot considered potential inhabitantsof the subject rezone area. Additional surveys for these species are considered unnecessary. Thank you for the opportunity to serve Butte County and aid in the protection of its rare and endangered flora. Fames A. Jokers, J f.rq . Prouty Consalting Botanist tnvt►onmental Roviow NO, r Consulting Botanist APR �9 1960 NINE zY '2 F: 2i RARE PLANT HABITAT PLANT ccr-E SUSPECTED CONFIRMED ----- r FRPL UFLC .#� SIR R . 2S � 4°s i. t'-• r tr y. tip a ' :i _._..-_. .--.-__...____..___-._,--__--saw:-•--,._� e__ _ _ _-__ _._._ _ Fj ___• ,�, - j �; - - - `;, JOKE65T B. PROUTY :Botanical .Consultants a:. t STAYE Of CALIFORNIA—TRANSPORTATION AGENCY 90MUNu G3 OROWN JR., Oavaroor• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 5 jEhtilrortm.nlal Ravlaw CnR4. P, O, Box 91 I, MARYSVILLE 93001 'telephone (916) 674-42'x? FEB 51980 N96 Couniy Vebruary 4, 1980 03 -But -9 DETR Chico Airport Rezone SCSI 79091103 Mr. Earl Nelson Butte County Environmental Review Department #18--F County Center Drive oroville, California 95965 Dear Mr. Nelson: Than]c you for the opportunity to review the draft ElR for the proposed rezoning of 6,180 acres of general agricultural: land around. the Chico Airport. We disagree with the statement on page 50, Paragraph 21 that "Highway 99 is not expected to be significantly affected..." The ADT (121000 to 1),000) estimated :dor Route 99 would mean a peak hour flow of 1,200 to 1,,,500 veM.cleo per hour on Route 99 and up to 600 vehicles per hour on Keefer Road and the proposed connection south of Keefer. The maximum volume of passenger cars that can maintain stable flow at ANO mph is approximately 1,400 per hour under ideal conditions on this two-lane highway. The section of Highway 99 both north and south of Wilson Landing Road would experience a Lowering in the level, of service from a ,current 7 evcl of "B" to a level. of "E" with full development of the project. The roadway capacity is further ,lowered in the va cinity of other crossrop,d intersections. Due to the close proximity of the Hicks Lade/Eaton Road intersection and the ge ramps, Eaton Road interchanincreased traffic volumes would have a sjgn.ificant adverse , effect on the operation of the inter- section and. the interchange ramps. Based on current ADT plus at generated ADT, 'both Garner :cane and Keefer Lane would W P.Coje left -turn channelizata.oxi at Highway 99 intersections at, p oject d for 'Fhe _. s dere. . r an z. 1d b e measures should bu�.ld--out:.. Mitigation meas s Route 99 mainline as well as at intersections with other roads. a , g imp ac*, respect to potential ara�.na a a.m ac*, we have the foll owing comments V b t Environmental Review Director's response to Lhe Ie-tt.er of February 41 1980 from Oaltrans. Information regarding traffic increases on reads and inter- sections within the rezone area and suggested mitigationo for , those problems are noted. Projected traffic increases and related conp8tion and safety considevationo are acknowledged to be 'issues that must; be dealt with as the need arises and as funds become available. Some pre -planning to establish a funding mechanism to insure that money is available so needed. improvements can be built when the need arises is recommended. Regarding surface drainage, a study of drainage problems and solutions for the Hoch Creek and Tipper Mud. Crook areas has been completed by Jon Anderson, Civil. Engineer, and is being in- corporated into the environmental study for this rezone. Viis study does identify which downstream, drainage structures are: inadequate and need to be upgraded to accommodate existing and projected development. Regarding whether to allow drainage to flow from one watershed to another and whether, to maintain drainage patterns as they now exist those are engineering questions which were addressed in Ton Anderson's study. if one watershed has more capacity or has potential capacity that can be developed at minimal cast, this would logically be the most feasible receptor of drainage increases if the original watershed is at or above capacity. This also assumes,of course, that the diversion does not create more problems than it solves. Regarding urban strategy considerations, the goal of the State Urban Strategy 'to preserve agricultural land is acknowledged. Consideration of alternative zoning patterns which would be less detrimental to, agricultural lands will occur in the course of the public hearing process. A a BUTTE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRXCT M3TplcT OFMICq AT ROUTE 2, a0X 2040 WI.LLIA4 K. HAYQiL.TIN[, N1.0. IIt, consiept or pWOVII» t AlkPoN7 4±R0Vli LE, CALIFORNIA 95965 MANAGKA • KNVIIMONMKNVALINT ON 46iiKIN.AdAD n140HIt Isla) a33-00:4 8Aa+71100' f t4ft"Me"Jel -ADVNW Qrpf. Jan�;tar�r l b, 19 a� JAN 17 11�60 Mr, Earl Nelson DUN cowify Environmental Review Department 18 F County Center :Drive Oroville, California 95965 Subject; Comlaents on Draft EIR Chico Airport Environs Rezone, Log 79-04-Z4-01. Dear Earl„ We have reviewed this Draft EIR and offer the following comments and mitigation suggestions: le The soil type and expected poor drainage make the use of underground electrical transformer vaults a high risk problem for mosquito breeding and disease potential Mitigation is to require pad mounted, above, ground transformers in this area (p, 52-54). 2. This area has vernal pools which hold water and create breeding areas. Any development plan should require sloping the land to grade and/or engineeredstorm, drains to cut down on this type of potential problem (p. 22, 24 and 87). 3. There was some mention of use of the old sewage treatment facilities:. If these were reconstructed for use, we suggest that the designer contact us for suggestions on configuration which will reduce suitable mosquito habitat. 4; There are dredger pits in Section 32 which are within the S. It., 1 zone, and which would require filling as, a reasonable mitigation. These areas usually produce mosquitos, and as residential construction moves into this area, this problem should receive attention, If other kinds of correction are; proposed, we would be happy to evaluate sueh alto,rnativea, if mitigation by fil,lirig is not acceptable, we would suggest SOMe othox kind of non,-residential zoning for the area around these water bodice. Thanit you for the opportunity to comineztit. Please Ball, if ,you have any questWns about I'lle suggestions, $incdrely William E Hazeltine, Ph. D. , R. P. El. Manager -Envixonm,ental st WEH:'Is cc; PG & E file a o V-11 .. .r $TA1I! Or C'AUrOANIA—MOORCEs AGENCY EDMOND o, 606WH 3R., oov.rnor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGION 2 1�ol NIMBUS ROAD, SUITE A RANCHO coRDOYA, CAMFORNIA 936711 OW 355-7030 t n►►m at n.et IAP! 0 71980 Bow C -000i December egg, 1979 Mr. ;Earl A. Nelson Environmental Review Director Butte County 18--x' County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mri Nelson: The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Draft EZR for the Chico Airport Environs Rezone and has the following comments: 1. There will be a,significant adverse impact on wildlife and rabitat if those areas proposed for zoning into parcels leas than 20 acres are fully developed. Of particular concern are the impacts on vernal pools and on prairie falcons which occur in the area. 2. Sewage and surface drainage have the potential of adverse impact on downstream water quality in Big Chico Creek and the Sacramento Diver. Stringent soil stabilization and drainage restrictions should be enacted as project mitigation Alternative 2 is recommended in place of the proposed zoning. It would reduce impacts on habitat and wildlife. Specifically,' protection could be given to vernal pools and associated endangered ;flora. 4. Proposed mitigation measures pertaining to vegetation and wildlife should be adopted and made as requirements on the project sponsor. Riparian setbacks should be required to avoid flood control projects which are detrimental to habitat and wildlife. 5. Transplanting endangered flora (if feasible) would not ensure survival as the area in which the plants were transplanted may experience development in the future. On-site protection is the only guarantee of survival.. N,CO' Xl: "V:4 Tu ll M 1. N,CO' Xl: "V:4 Tu ll M VII b L- vironmental Review Director's response to the letter of December 28, 1979 from -the Department of Fish and Camo. Response to Comment 1. Dotermina'tion of significance of any environmental impact is a judgement to be :made by the Lead Agency pursuant to the requirements of CE(,A. Some effort toward ve;vn,a], pool preservation is likely to occur on a project by project basis as development occurs pursuant to this rezone. Response to Comment, 2. Effects on surface drainage will be ^typical of urban areas, although relatively low in intensity due 'to the projected low density of development. Since the area is relatively flat, erosion is not a great; concern. Drainage solutions are being presented for consideration in the Upper. Mud Creek_aiid Rock Creels drainage studies prepared by Jon Anderson, Civil Engineer. Response to Comment . The suggestion regarding Alternative 2 is acknowledged. Reaponse to Comment 4. Mitigation measures cannot be made conditions of a rezone of this type, but can be selectively applied to subsequent development projects within the rezone area. The conflict between channel Clearing for flood control and preservation of riparian vegetation along streams is acknowledged. Replanting of willows and other riparian species should be a required mitigation of such channel clearing projects. Res once to Comment 5. The reference -to on --site preservation as a mitigation for rare plants is acknowledged 1��uPrc IM P ttr ` + teat. ��e �4r4i Ft is tliL' awl V,tJ u March 25, 1980 Earl Nelson Environmental Review Director County of Butte 2279 Del Oro Avenue Qrovi lle , CA 95965 Rei Air. ortrnvirons Rezone Proposal ElR Dear. Mr. Nelsons We wish to submit comments on the draft EIR on this proposed rezone. Generally, we consider this a very well prepared EIR. It includes considerable information on most of the important facts. Unfortunately, the author has overlooked some subjects and alternatives which are signi- ficant and should be evaluated under CBQA and the State Guidelines, The following items are submitted to help you in the completion, of the EIR 1. The alternative of agricultural zoning of some 1500 acres of prime soils between garner Lane and Highway 99 has q y ,not been adequately considered, 2. Population 'projections, with conclusions regarding housing supply and demand, do not address current projects that are in the works. These include The Village, California Park and Foothill Park.. Furthermorer work being done on the Northeast and Southeast Chico Sewer Assessment Districts has not been considered. We believe these projects will satisfy most of the projected housing demand for many years. 3 Energy conservation and use have not been considered in the EXR nor have fiscal implications been adequately addressed.